cmaldoon

ajrod27 wrote:Your logic would make sense if the shooter was a law abiding citizen and chose to use only 10 round magazines. As long as manufactures are producting high capacity magazines, people will find a way to aquire them. Given the benifit of the doubt, even if the shooter did use 10 round magazines, he would just have to carry more magazines; it only takes a second to swap a magazine, so I'm not confident that would result in fewer deaths over such a short timeframe.

I believe the problem has less to do with the tool being used, and more to do with the person using the tool; just like the infamous saying, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Take away one tool and they'll just find another...

We need to focus more on the psychology of the people committing the crimes. That might give us some insight on how to prevent, or at least reduce, the occurence of these outbreaks.

The OWNER by all current accounts WAS a law abiding citizen. If 30 round mags were illegal, the perpetrator would likely not have had immediate access to them and may have even been caught attempting to purchase them illegally which may have prevented this whole thing. Alternately he would have used 10 round mags at which point I reference the above reply.

cmaldoon

I believe the problem has less to do with the tool being used, and more to do with the person using the tool; just like the infamous saying, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Take away one tool and they'll just find another...

We need to focus more on the psychology of the people committing the crimes. That might give us some insight on how to prevent, or at least reduce, the occurence of these outbreaks.

The guns don't kill people phrase is horrifically overused and has become an excuse. I think that the common retort is that people WITH guns kill people. (Which also falls short because of knives and bombs and fists... But I digress)

There is no single answer to the problem. Taking all guns away leads to other problems and is still politically untenable in this country (I am firmly against it, I like the 2nd amendment). Limiting guns in various ways could be beneficial but won't magically solve the problem. Attending to mental health better will likely be helpful but won't solve the problem. Both of these minor fixes also cost the government money to put in place. This is all a big balancing act and I don't have the answers, just questions and points of interest.

chemvictim

I do think that being armed in a horrible situation > not being armed. I don't buy the "you'll shoot the wrong person and do more harm than good" argument.

Okay. Clearly there are some skilled and knowledgeable people here. That's great! I'm just wondering if the public at large contains more of the knowledgeable, or more of the shoot-myself-in-the-ass types.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:Okay. Clearly there are some skilled and knowledgeable people here. That's great! I'm just wondering if the public at large contains more of the knowledgeable, or more of the shoot-myself-in-the-ass types.

A truly fair question. But as you said, if I want to shoot myself in the ass, it's my business.

I'd like some numbers re: accidental shootings (by adults). I may do some research tomorrow if I get the chance.

Side note: remember that anti-drug commercial where the two kids were smoking weed? "Want to see something cool? It's my dad's." Bang! Black screen. "Don't do drugs" in big bold letters. NOT: don't leave your loaded guns in unlocked drawers when you have 12 year olds.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

tiger7610

Depends on the public, people here are mostly intelligent, logical people. I personally do not trust the mob out there. As for arming the general populace, we had the shooting outside empire state building a few month ago where trained police officers shot innocent bystanders in a crowd, I'm scared to think what others could create if they had guns.

ajrod27

Samuel L Jackson said this about the Sandy Hook shooting: “I don’t think it’s about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”

I agree with him. I guess my view on guns has been shaped by my upbringing. I was raised in a small agricultural town where guns were common in households; used for hunting, sport (trap, skeet or target shooting) and defense. I have lived in San Jose for over 5 years and my views haven't changed. I have no problem with people carrying a concealed weapon, as long as they know how and when to use it. I have no problem with high caliber rifles or even assault rifles. They're like the sport-cars of guns! Of course you don't always need that much power, but taking away that freedom isn't constitutional IMO.

ajrod27

cmaldoon wrote:The increase in time it takes to fire off any large number of rounds with 10 round mags as opposed to 30 round ones is staggering. That time is time for first responders to arrive, time for victims to flee, time for heroes to jump the guy. Even if there is an armed cop in the building, he/she is going to appreciate the increased downtime because all he/she will have is a pistol and this guy had a rifle and body armor.

One might say that he would simply change guns if he needed to instead of reloading. Well, then he had pistols which were unlikely to have 30 round magazines (and could likewise be limited) and any time he is firing said pistol he is not reloading the rifle.

3 seconds may be on the high side, but doing it in significantly under 2 seconds, on average, with multiple clips on your person would be difficult.

I am not trying to make the point that limiting magazines to 10 rounds solves the problem or prevents the shooting. Just that it could have lessened the damage significantly.

cmaldoon wrote:The OWNER by all current accounts WAS a law abiding citizen. If 30 round mags were illegal, the perpetrator would likely not have had immediate access to them and may have even been caught attempting to purchase them illegally which may have prevented this whole thing. Alternately he would have used 10 round mags at which point I reference the above reply.

I know the owner was a law abiding citizen. My point was, assuming the government restricted magazines to 10 rounds, a criminal wouldn't care and would find a way to acquire high capacity magazines illegally.

California already has a 10-round magazine restriction, plus a ban on assault rifles, but high capacity mags and assault rifles are still available on the black market.

mother

ajrod27 wrote:California already has a 10-round magazine restriction, plus a ban on assault rifles, but high capacity mags and assault rifles are still available on the black market.

Another nit to pick: assault rifles are almost non-existent outside law enforcement. You mean "Assault Weapons" which is a term that doesn't actually mean anything but (tounge in cheek) "scary black gun".

[Assault rifles can be set to shoot more than one bullet at a trigger pull...]

cmaldoon

This is the problem with the gun control debate in this country: One starts talking about relatively minor limits as just one thing to be done to help curb such violence and gun advocates get incredible defensive and acting like its the end of the bill of rights and like the government is going to take all guns away.

cmaldoon

ajrod27 wrote:I know the owner was a law abiding citizen. My point was, assuming the government restricted magazines to 10 rounds, a criminal wouldn't care and would find a way to acquire high capacity magazines illegally.

California already has a 10-round magazine restriction, plus a ban on assault rifles, but high capacity mags and assault rifles are still available on the black market.

Solve things? No, the word Solve is inherently black and white. The word to use is improve. Would a new law for this or that IMPROVE the situation as a whole while taking into account its efficacy, it's cost, and its ability to be enforced.

chemvictim

cmaldoon wrote:This is the problem with the gun control debate in this country: One starts talking about relatively minor limits as just one thing to be done to help curb such violence and gun advocates get incredible defensive and acting like its the end of the bill of rights and like the government is going to take all guns away.

Throw in some nonsense about prayer in schools and the war on Christmas and the whole thing goes to hell. The conspiracy theories are out there, that the gov't actually sponsored this shooting as a means to accomplish a gun ban. We (as a nation) have all gone batshit crazy.

North316

I'm not really on either side of the fence here, however, if this KID had only 10 round CLIPS in his ASSAULT RIFLE it probably would not have made a difference. The FACTS AS REPORTED are that he shot eat child with upwards of 7 or 8 bullets. If he had a smaller clip he may have just shot each person with less bullets so he didn't have to reload as much.

The guns probably aren't the problem. The mom was probably not the problem (though many other times it could be a parenting issue). The kid was the problem here. This wasn't some kid that just snapped. This was a cold, calculated, pre-meditated shooting spree. He murdered his mother while she slept. Smashed all of his harddrives and then went on his rampage.

cmaldoon

I would love for you to put out a few ideas, some reasoning on how and why they would help. A discourse takes two sides talking with each other. I'm putting up suggestions and perfectly willing to listen to reason on why they are no good but only getting replies of "that wouldn't fix the problem" (didn't say it would, just said it could help) or "you have no clue what you're talking about" ( which would be more elegantly expressed with a thorough and crushing reasoning of the case rather than an uncalled for unsubstantiated insult)

Question for all: do you seriously expect one law to be written up that would forever "fix" the problem and cause such things to NEVER happen again?

Next: Is it better to have a law that does SOME good in reducing the occurance or impact of such shootings or to leave the laws as they are?

chemvictim

cmaldoon wrote:Next: Is it better to have a law that does SOME good in reducing the occurance or impact of such shootings or to leave the laws as they are?

It's a tough call. We'd need to try to evaluate the risk vs. reward. For instance, an armed kindergarten teacher might be able to stop a murderer (or might not be able to), but what about the potential for accidents or misuse?

Remember the theater shooting? A confusing scene of mass chaos. What might have happened if 5-6 other people in there had guns? Would they have been able to take down that shooter or would it have caused even more casualties in the confusion?

Is it worth it, curtailing the freedoms of law-abiding citizens in the hopes that maybe we'd have fewer casualties next time a guy goes crazy and shoots up a place? Obviously we don't want a hysterical, fewer-casualties-at-all-costs mindset.

mother

I would love for you to put out a few ideas, some reasoning on how and why they would help. A discourse takes two sides talking with each other. I'm putting up suggestions and perfectly willing to listen to reason on why they are no good but only getting replies of "that wouldn't fix the problem" (didn't say it would, just said it could help) or "you have no clue what you're talking about" ( which would be more elegantly expressed with a thorough and crushing reasoning of the case rather than an uncalled for unsubstantiated insult)

The problem with trying to discuss this subject all stem from ignorance:
-For ,what I feel are obvious, reasons everyone who bothers to learn enough about the subject at hand ends up not wanting to support any of these asinine knee-jerk reactions that really won't help. What we're left with is people who have no clue even about the names of the things they are proposing to regulate.
-There is this rush to make selfish, arrogant, self serving pronouncements about "what we need to do" before we have the relevant facts from the incident. This happens on *both* sides of the issue btw.

What I said previously was:

mother wrote:Anyhow, I think the best outcome would be mandatory mental health and criminal background checks that somehow magically worked (which means an end to the gun show thing), a national ballistic registry, a 1 way registry (serial number -> purchaser), and a 20-30 round capacity limit. The way you get this passed is by making it non-severable and including universal reciprocity.

But more importantly, I think we need to seriously examine how we deal with mental health as a nation...
(all IMHO)

The issues with firearm violence *really* aren't about legal firearms, they're either about illegal firearms or mental health.

joelsisk

According to the FBI violent crime statistics, roughly 200 people have been killed every year (over the last 10 years) in multiple homicide situations***. Roughly 11000 people die every year in single homicides using a gun. Bullets/magazines are not an issue.

You guys really want to focus your energy on preventing the 200 (very tragic and extensively covered) deaths? 200 out of 300+ Million population.

From BoJustice - Homicides are more likely to involve multiple offenders than multiple victims.

ETA - apparently the 200 dead includes non-gun methods. Also, the number one "method" of mass killings is fire, not guns.

bhodilee

chemvictim wrote:It's a tough call. We'd need to try to evaluate the risk vs. reward. For instance, an armed kindergarten teacher might be able to stop a murderer (or might not be able to), but what about the potential for accidents or misuse?

Remember the theater shooting? A confusing scene of mass chaos. What might have happened if 5-6 other people in there had guns? Would they have been able to take down that shooter or would it have caused even more casualties in the confusion?

Is it worth it, curtailing the freedoms of law-abiding citizens in the hopes that maybe we'd have fewer casualties next time a guy goes crazy and shoots up a place? Obviously we don't want a hysterical, fewer-casualties-at-all-costs mindset.

Rubber bullets or shotguns with beanbag rounds. Are they going to kill someone in body armor? No, but they may very well knock him off balance or down and that may be enough to disarm him. At the very least it's going to get him to focus his energy on the person shooting at him. Also, since these are non-lethal rounds (usually) if there is an accident, it's probably not going to be fatal.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

cmaldoon

mother wrote:Anyhow, I think the best outcome would be mandatory mental health and criminal background checks that somehow magically worked (which means an end to the gun show thing), a national ballistic registry, a 1 way registry (serial number -> purchaser), and a 20-30 round capacity limit. The way you get this passed is by making it non-severable and including universal reciprocity.

But more importantly, I think we need to seriously examine how we deal with mental health as a nation...

The issues with firearm violence *really* aren't about legal firearms, they're either about illegal firearms or mental health.

First of all, a genuine thank you for returning this to a real discussion. I do want to learn here.

I do wish that background checks would work better and agree with you that it might take magic to make that work in a way that would not be onerous to legitimate owners and completely ignored by those with black market weapons.

I do think that a thorough database that tracks ballistic marks to gun serial number to purchaser/owner is infinitely doable right now and should be put in place as you note. Additionally I would like to see penalties put in place for those who do not report a missing/stolen gun in a timely fashion or properly report a sale.

This all needs to be done at a federal level and rolled out as uniformly as possible to ease the pain on the owners, buyers, and sellers I would suspect.

As noted in another recent post, the great majority of shooting deaths are in single death situations and therefore although magazine size restrictions might help in mass shootings, that is a very small piece of the puzzle. I'll conceded that point though still would back a lower limit because I don't see it hurting anything.

The mental health issue is certainly at the forefront here but how does one deal with it? It is incredibly expensive to provide treatment (counseling, safe environment, medication) to everyone who may need it. Then comes the question of those who wouldn't want such treatment. I have known a person who flatly refused to take anything even after having a knife pried from his hand and threatening to kill himself. Such people would have to be institutionalized, against their wishes until they are "cured". Can a mental illness be truly cured?

Would we need to connect a registry of persons who have been evaluated and found positive for particular mental illnesses to the gun background check registry? Perhaps. Would that violate the 2nd amendment? It would probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the case of the most recent shooting, based on what is reported, (given: only partial information) no database or registry would have prevented it. The mother securely locking the guns away from her son may have but I bet he would have found a way to get to the guns anyway.

It is difficult to accept but a shooting like the one in Newtown may just happen. Saddest thing is that it may be best if it were to get almost no media coverage at all so as to not glorify the shooter in other potential shooters eyes.

ajrod27

mother wrote:Another nit to pick: assault rifles are almost non-existent outside law enforcement. You mean "Assault Weapons" which is a term that doesn't actually mean anything but (tounge in cheek) "scary black gun".

[Assault rifles can be set to shoot more than one bullet at a trigger pull...]

Assault 'weapons' like the SKS and CA-AR15, which are legal in California, are easily modified to be capable of fully-automatic fire. I think ‘Assault weapons’ is just a term used as a loophole to the assault rifle ban. Just because the CA-AR15 doesn’t have an external rapid fire switch, doesn’t make it much different than the AR-15 the government uses.

cmaldoon wrote:This is the problem with the gun control debate in this country: One starts talking about relatively minor limits as just one thing to be done to help curb such violence and gun advocates get incredible defensive and acting like its the end of the bill of rights and like the government is going to take all guns away.

Guns have a really bad reputation within populous areas. Just because a few nut cases use a gun to kill people, doesn’t mean restriction should be placed on everyone. Gun advocates do not believe the government is going to take all guns away; we just don’t tolerate restrictions on our rights.

Nationwide in 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. How do you think the public would react if the government mandated all vehicles to be equipped with a breath alcohol ignition interlock system? Of course it would save thousands of lives, but it is an encroachment on freedom.

As one of the most prevalent causes of vehicle-related accidents, speeding-related crashes claimed the lives of 11,674 people in 2008, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. If the government decided that a passenger car should need no more than 100HP and restricted to 55mph, would you be OK with that?

bhodilee

ajrod27 wrote:Guns have a really bad reputation within populous areas. Just because a few nut cases use a gun to kill people, doesn’t mean restriction should be placed on everyone. Gun advocates do not believe the government is going to take all guns away; we just don’t tolerate restrictions on our rights.

Nationwide in 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. How do you think the public would react if the government mandated all vehicles to be equipped with a breath alcohol ignition interlock system? Of course it would save thousands of lives, but it is an encroachment on freedom.

As one of the most prevalent causes of vehicle-related accidents, speeding-related crashes claimed the lives of 11,674 people in 2008, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. If the government decided that a passenger car should need no more than 100HP and restricted to 55mph, would you be OK with that?

you would hate me. I'd have zero problem with cars being equipped with ignition interlock systems. It's not impinging on your freedom at all. It's not stopping you from driving (which isn't a right, hence why your license can be revoked) but it's stopping you from driving DRUNK, which is illegal. Basically, it's stopping you from breaking the law. I'm fine with that.

Also, in regards to speeding I've often wondered if you could equip road signs with rfid or other type technology that could interface with a vehicle and limit it's speed to no more than the speed limit (again, keeping you from breaking the law, not violating a right). That'd essentially solve the problem. The "what if I need to pound the gas in the incredibly rare instance where going over the speed limit may save my life" argument won't work in this instance because it's essentially what you're arguing against with gun restrictions. Statistical outliers shouldn't result in policy.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

ajrod27

I wouldn't have a problem with this either actually, if it worked perfectly; didn't require any additional cost, required no maintenance and didn’t impede me from starting my car when not intoxicated. But it’s more about the principle of creating blanketing policies over a few isolated incidents. Beside the point, there is probably enough public resistance to shoot down this type of proposal anyways.

mother

ajrod27 wrote:Assault 'weapons' like the SKS and CA-AR15, which are legal in California, are easily modified to be capable of fully-automatic fire. I think ‘Assault weapons’ is just a term used as a loophole to the assault rifle ban. Just because the CA-AR15 doesn’t have an external rapid fire switch, doesn’t make it much different than the AR-15 the government uses.

It's the anti-gun lobby that coined and uses the term "assault weapon" to circumvent the fact that the guns being discussed are not assault rifles.

Yes the only IMPORTANT differences between assault rifles and the nearly identical sporting rifle variants are a lack of select fire (they don't do automatic for the non gun types). However the "Assault Weapons Ban" was/is a ban on having too many of the COSMETIC features of assault rifles.

mother

cmaldoon wrote:The mental health issue is certainly at the forefront here but how does one deal with it? It is incredibly expensive to provide treatment (counseling, safe environment, medication) to everyone who may need it.

I'm down with the government (read:us) paying for such care. I'm one of those rare taxpayers who wants his 2nd Amendment rights AND everyone to have healthcare.

Then comes the question of those who wouldn't want such treatment. I have known a person who flatly refused to take anything even after having a knife pried from his hand and threatening to kill himself. Such people would have to be institutionalized, against their wishes until they are "cured". Can a mental illness be truly cured?

This is totally a different issue, and one that is well established. The big problem is that this is probably a state level issue, and will need to be hashed out 50 times.

You saw how the tea party Christmas sweaters reacted to the "Affordable Care Act," so they wont like this either... But there just may be an opening to do something because it *is* the correct solution to this problem.

That only leaves the real gun problem to be dealt with- illegal weapons in urban areas.

chemvictim

There doesn't appear to be progress about the fiscal cliff, might as well give up on that. Our politicians are children, and not the cute kind. The spoiled bratty kind.

I read today that the supreme court refused to block the contraception mandate. Apparently Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide insurance that covers the morning after pill because they think it's abortion. The morning after pill does not cause an abortion according to any scientific understanding of how it works. Same for birth control pills, but some people believe there might be a chance it could maybe work that way somehow, blah blah blah. So I wondered, to get excepted from whatever law based on religious freedom, does your belief have to be somewhat based in reality? Does that part even matter? I've decided that paying income tax is so stressful that it could cause a spontaneous abortion, so I shouldn't have to pay. I can't take a chance on that, it violates my conscience.

klezman

The concept of religious "freedom" in this country baffles me sometimes. My religion doesn't celebrate Christmas, so I don't want any portion of my taxes going to public displays of Christmas trees. Does that work too?

As for requiring some basis in reality, I don't think that matters. Explicitly. Religion is completely independent from reality, as the extremists from any religion have aptly demonstrated over and over again. (Creation museum, anyone?)

chemvictim

The concept of religious "freedom" in this country baffles me sometimes. My religion doesn't celebrate Christmas, so I don't want any portion of my taxes going to public displays of Christmas trees. Does that work too?

As for requiring some basis in reality, I don't think that matters. Explicitly. Religion is completely independent from reality, as the extremists from any religion have aptly demonstrated over and over again. (Creation museum, anyone?)

I get that the belief need not be rooted in reality, but shouldn't the application of the belief be at least somewhat realistic in order to qualify for exceptions from the laws that the rest of us have to follow? Clearly I don't understand the religious freedom stuff either, despite Sparky's vigorous efforts to educate me.

edit: I'm confusing myself (as usual) about beliefs. I think the Hobby Lobby religious belief is that abortion is wrong. Fine. The belief that the morning after pill causes abortion is (presumably?) not a religious belief. Or is it? Gaaaah.

klezman

chemvictim wrote:I get that the belief need not be rooted in reality, but shouldn't the application of the belief be at least somewhat realistic in order to qualify for exceptions from the laws that the rest of us have to follow? Clearly I don't understand the religious freedom stuff either, despite Sparky's vigorous efforts to educate me.

edit: I'm confusing myself (as usual) about beliefs. I think the Hobby Lobby religious belief is that abortion is wrong. Fine. The belief that the morning after pill causes abortion is (presumably?) not a religious belief. Or is it? Gaaaah.

In my world that's not a question that's subject to belief. It's a fact, plain and simple. Whether you think it's somehow evil is clearly a matter of opinion, no matter how much I think the answer is blindingly obvious.

tytiger58

Well if your going down that road why not throw out the Bible, Koran, the Torah etc? At some point they are all telling you how to live etc and the writers new nothing of the complexities of the modern world. If your going to stir the pot go all the way

klezman

tytiger58 wrote:Well if your going down that road why not throw out the Bible, Koran, the Torah etc? At some point they are all telling you how to live etc and the writers new nothing of the complexities of the modern world. If your going to stir the pot go all the way

Hahahahaha Since we don't (yet) live in a theocracy I figured just the one was enough for now. There are also very few who claim that the Torah is literal. Not to mention the centuries spent analyzing and interpreting it through the ages (Mishna and Talmud of old, others later). Or I'm just too rational about religion

tytiger58

klezman wrote:Hahahahaha Since we don't (yet) live in a theocracy I figured just the one was enough for now. There are also very few who claim that the Torah is literal. Not to mention the centuries spent analyzing and interpreting it through the ages (Mishna and Talmud of old, others later). Or I'm just too rational about religion

Ha sorry I just threw the Torah in at the spur of the moment...and to push your button a little and no IMHO your not too rational about religion. But really all of these books/documents hold some great truths and IMO should not just be scrapped because a bunch of (ignorant self serving politicians) or leaders of religion can't figure it out.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.